Give a Damn About Financing Your Education

When I was applying to colleges in the late 1990s, it seemed like the world was my oyster. Bill Clinton was president, and we were still living in a dot-com bubble. Credit flowed freely, and the nation's biggest problem was where Clinton stored his cigars. Everything seemed limitless.

Fast-forward through nearly a decade of George W. Bush, risky investments, and my first-ever unemployment stint, and I have to say that you college-aged kids out there shouldn't worry about attending a school that isn't your first choice.

As a spendthrift by nature, I didn't worry too much about going into debt for college. My mother warned me that it was a lot of money to pay back when I graduated, but it didn't bother me. The economy was great—surely the rising tide would lift the boat of even the most poor writers, and I'd manage.

I did attend a state school for a year (thanks again for losing my financial aid paperwork, Emerson!), and I hated it. I loathed seeing everyone I ever knew in high school. The writing program at URI was horrible. I knew I wasn't going to get the education I needed there, so I transferred to Emerson my sophomore year.

I don't regret my decision to attend Emerson, largely because Sallie Mae has yet to develop the technology to repossess the education and experience I got there if I can't make the payments. But if I could have seen the financial landscape that awaited me in my late 20s, I might have chosen the University of Maine or another institution far enough away from home, but with a more affordable program.

So don't worry, young folks. If you've got the talent and the ambition to do something with your life, it doesn't matter if your degree says Harvard College or the University of Massachusetts, especially as you enter college during a recession. Just work your ass off where ever you end up, and it'll be just fine.

Unless, of course, things get worse. In which case, we can burn our degrees for warmth.

We Do Need Some Birth Control

I hope Congress has a real good explanation for this nonsense.

Prices for oral contraceptives, or birth control pills, are doubling and tripling at student health centers, the result of a complex change in the Medicaid rebate law that essentially ends an incentive for drug companies to provide deep discounts to colleges....

The change is the result of a chain reaction started by a 2005 deficit-reduction bill that focused on Medicaid, the main federal health insurance program for the poor. College health officials say they had little idea the bill would affect them.

Before the change, pharmaceutical companies typically sold drugs at deep discounts to a range of health care providers, including colleges. With contraceptives, one motivation was attracting customers who would stay with their products for years.

Now a student who was paying $10 for birth control is now paying $22 a month, which, for those of you keeping track, is more than double what they paid a couple of months ago. It doesn't sound like a lot of money, but when you multiply that out (finds calculator), students are paying $144 a year more than they did last year. I don't know if you remember college, but money isn't flowing as freely as keg beer. $144 is half a textbook. Maybe that money comes out of rent. Maybe it just gets piled on the credit card these girls got offered at orientation. In any case, this most basic and easy of medicines is becoming a luxury.

Not all college girls are taking the pill to avoid pregnancy. Some girls need the pill to ease heavy periods, symptoms of endometriosis, or even for acne control. The pill is not just a contraceptive. Also, not every pill has a generic. When I began my foray into birth control pills out of college (I am the one woman in the history of the world who didn't get laid on a regular basis in college) I tried the generic Ortho. Unfortunately, I broke out like crazy. For a person who hardly ever had acne, it was pretty traumatic. My doctor then had me try Yasmin.

"It's expensive," she said, "but maybe it won't work either."

Of course, Yasmin works like a charm. (Look, ma, no babies!) My pharmacist told me that the likelihood of a generic Yasmin isn't very good for at least another five years. My company's insurance, which gets crappier by the year, charged me $20/month last year, which jumped to $30/month this year. Luckily, I participate in the mail-order program, so it ends up costing me $60 for three months' supply, but it ain't cheap. But I remember that the good thing about the pill is that I don't have cramps that knock me over or long, gross periods.

I just don't understand how there is so much government pork that NBC Nightly News can have a weekly feature describing the myriad wastes of money the federal government allows, but college girls can't have affordable birth control? Come on, Congress. I expect better of you.

Idiots of the Week

You've got to be fucking kidding.

The principal of the Saint Rose of Lima School banned talking at lunch after three students choked in the cafeteria.

Hold on. Wait. Back up. I don't think I can shut enough of my brain cells off to understand this kind of stupidity. None of the kids can talk because three morons can't figure out how to control the flow of food and air through their bodies? The snippet doesn't say what age group these kids are, but even if they're kindergarteners, they should have the basic body control to figure out HOW NOT TO CHOKE WHILE EATING if they're able to attend school. Also, it's absolutely the dumbest thing I've heard this week (including Bush's "I'm the boss of this family and what I say goes" comment) is the diocese's plan to try and regulate how the kids eat their food. And, strictly speaking, the real problem is that the kids have to breathe and eat at the same time. So really, the kids should be told not to breathe at all in the cafeteria while eating lunch. Perhaps the nuns should go around and cut the kids grapes in half and chop up their hot dogs too. God.

Sweet fancy Christ. That's the absolute dumbest thing I've heard all week. I fear getting old since the future of America can't even chew it's own food properly. How are they going to manage the blender to turn my food into mush I can gum?

Professor Chafee

Man, I want to audit Professor Chafee's class.

Chafee starts in January as a distinguished visiting fellow at Brown's Thomas J. Watson Jr. Institute for International Studies.

In his new post, Brown said Chafee will lead an undergraduate study group on U.S. foreign policy and will work on writing projects.

Well, at least he'll be keeping busy.

I believe our children are the future...

We Don't Need No Thought Control

Yesterday I was perusing the "top stories" on Boston.com, and amidst the stories about cats being rescued and people hating Rachael Ray I found an opinion article about the way college professors teach literature. The person who wrote the article, Elizabeth Kantor, is the author of a book titled The Politically Incorrect Guide to English and American Literature.

Kantor begins:

IT'S OFFICIAL: You spend tens of thousands of dollars to send your children to college. In return, the colleges turn out graduates who are more ignorant than when they enrolled.

Some of us paid our own way to become more ignorant, lady. I'll check my bitterness at the door and move along.

According to a recent survey by the University of Connecticut and the Intercollegiate Studies Institute of more than 14,000 randomly selected college freshman and seniors at 50 colleges across the country, seniors actually know less about American history and government than entering freshmen.

On the surface, that does indeed look damning. After watching any episode of "Jaywalking" on Leno, it's painfully apparent that Americans don't know that much about what used to be considered basic information. However, I wonder if the study takes into account that most college freshmen have just come from four years of history courses in high school while most college seniors fulfilled their general history requirements while they were a freshman in college. Once three years has passed and a student has taken more courses specific to his field, it stands to reason that what he learned in his freshman history class has moved to the foggy banks of his memory while the knowledge he needs to complete his degree is at the forefront.

But students don't just learn (or unlearn, as the case may be) facts in college. They also learn attitudes and principles. In other words, they form their characters, which, Aristotle pointed out more than 2,000 years ago, means learning to love and delight in certain things and spurn others. For example, American students used to learn more from the Gettysburg Address than just the facts of Civil War military history. They also learned to love self-government -- and its necessary condition, the courage and sacrifice of the patriotic soldier.

Students also learn the art of keg stands, one-night stands, flip-cup and high doses of No-Doze. I think we may be kicking it a little differently in 2006 than 6. And "courage and sacrifice of the patriotic soldier?" I think most would agree that the Civil War was much different than the war our troops are fighting overseas right now.

But too many of today's politically correct college professors aren't interested in persuading young Americans to adopt any such traditional attitudes as patriotism, civic responsibility, or traditional morality. In fact, many American colleges seem to be teaching students to spurn the very things that students used to learn to love and delight in.

What? I'm pretty sure I never had a professor who told me to burn the flag and join the communist party. And "traditional morality" is a loaded phrase. Is it the college professors turning people gay? Because I went to Emerson, and I'm pretty sure most of those folks came to the party gayer than Christmas before college professors got ahold of them.

Finally, Kantor gets to the meat of her issue with college professors.

Universities are full of trendy English professors who don't read Shakespeare for the beauty of the poetry or its peerless insights into human nature. The point is to uncover the oppression that's supposed to define Western culture: the racism, "patriarchy," and imperialism that must lurk beneath the surface of everything written by those "dead white males." (The latest book from University of Pennsylvania professor emerita Phyllis Rackin, for example, investigates how "Macbeth" contributed to the "domestication of women.") With their low opinion of Western civilization, it's no wonder that so many English professors teach material that isn't English literature at all: Marx and Derrida -- and even comic books, politically correct bestsellers from the '80s, foreign films, and pornography -- rather than Shakespeare and Jane Austen.

Granted, I went to a pretty liberal college. But I went to state school for a year as well, and neither environment ever emphasized the negative aspects of Shakespeare over the positive. I took two classes specifically in Shakespeare during college, and I'm sure he cropped up in other courses. Issues of the negative side of Western culture is going to come into reading Shakespeare-- The Merchant of Venice is basically a romp through Jewish stereotypes and violence against Jews that only Mel Gibson could love in 2006. (I'll be here all night-- tip your waitresses!) The Taming of the Shrew, while hilarious, has almost a whole act of the play in which Pertruchio abuses his new wife to "tame" her. I think you have to address the way Shakespeare's culture was compared to the way we live now in 2006, but doing so doesn't eliminate the fact that Shakespeare was doing some amazing writing. For example:

To-morrow, and to-morrow, and to-morrow,
Creeps in this petty pace from day to day
To the last syllable of recorded time,
And all our yesterdays have lighted fools
The way to dusty death. Out, out, brief candle!
Life's but a walking shadow, a poor player
That struts and frets his hour upon the stage
And then is heard no more: it is a tale
Told by an idiot, full of sound and fury,
Signifying nothing.

Macbeth, 5. 5

If Shakespeare sucked and didn't still ring true, we wouldn't force high school and college kids to read his plays and poems.

To a lot of professors, Western culture is something students need to be liberated from. It is not something to pass on and preserve.

What a pity. Especially now, when we're under attack from enemies who want to replace our civilization with a very different kind of culture.

Western culture isn't in our genes. It's learned. And despite what the typical 21st-century college professor may believe, Western civilization has conferred enormous benefits on the human race: extraordinary freedom and respect for women, workable self-government, freedom of speech and the press.

Okay. Kantor wants us to not read our social values into Shakespeare but wants us to learn from the "dead white males" who Western Civilization has brought about positive roles for women and free speech? I don't understand her argument. I took a Western Civ class with the amazing John Coffee at Emerson College, and he made us read the Bible because, as he put it, to understand Western Civilization you must read the Bible. Professor Coffee leaned to the liberal side of things, but he never encouraged open anarchy in his classes. He did, however, plainly state that Western Civilization has brought about some bad things. We endorsed slavery for hundreds of years. Once we got rid of slavery, we made life just as hard on the freed slaves and their descendants. The Crusades? Bueller? We've started pointless wars, such as Vietnam and what led to the current civil war in Iraq. I love the freedom that Western Civilization grants me to question our wars and call Mitt Romney a fucking idiot and not fear being dragged from my bed in the middle of the night. However, we paid a price for those freedoms that we need to acknowledge, and perhaps find a way to make sure the abuses Western Civilization has inflicted on some don't continue.

If students actually studied the classics of English and American literature under the guidance of sympathetic teachers, they'd learn many other politically incorrect truths as well. From "Beowulf," students could learn that military virtue is both necessary and noble. In Chaucer, they might come to understand chivalry, and see how it changed the position of women. In Shakespeare, students could glimpse the existence of universal underlying patterns that shape and define human character (as well as all our institutions, from marriage to government).... Some of these lessons are characteristically Western. Others -- respect for military virtue, for example -- are typical of almost any healthy culture. But English professors are detached not just from the heritage of the West but in a sense from culture at all, or even from objective reality. "Essentialist" is the term of abuse that feminists and "queer theorists" apply to anyone who suggests that the stubborn facts of nature -- the differences between men and women, for example -- limit or define human beings in any way.

Military virtue is necessary, noble, and a trait of a "healthy culture?" I guess I understand Kantor's point, but there's a flip side to the argument. A healthy culture also needs people who are against the military. I'm not saying to not support troops, but people need to question what our troops are doing before we end up in a quagmire like we're in now. We need people to question the people in power, because without it the Western culture Kantor very much wants preserved would be irrevocably changed, and, frankly, not worth defending with even the most noble of armies.

Maybe I didn't go to the right school for this, but I never read literature only to criticize the negative aspects of Western culture. I was a writing major: maybe that contributed to the focus on the words and not the historical background. But while I've been to Stratford-Upon-Avon twice to visit the book geek Disney attraction that is Shakespeare's digs, I wouldn't sit around and call for a pound of flesh from a Jew. I don't want to end up on Jesse Jackson's radio show begging for forgiveness. Shakespeare and the other great writers of Western culture had a way with words, but our culture has changed from theirs and that needs to be acknowledged.